A week ago, citizen efforts to repeal discriminatory provisions of the car impound law fell short by a mere one vote. City Councilmembers Licata, Nicastro, McIver, and Steinbrueck could not muster the crucial fifth vote when Councilmember Wills--critical of the car impound law when she ran for office--chose to side with the Sidran forces (including Councilmembers Conlin, Pageler, Drago, and Compton). While this was an obvious disappointment, I feel we may have passed an important milestone toward achieving a majority needed on the City Council to overturn a decade of punitive laws that have deeply eroded the civil rights of the homeless, low income people, and people of color in our city. It was not so much what went down last week, but how it went down.

With reporters, cameras, and an audience of over 75 protesters cheering him on, Councilmember McIver pointed out that it should take "no more than three seconds" to understand what was behind the unequal enforcement of this law-- why people of color were the ones getting singled out for tickets, jail, and car tows. In 'nice' Seattle, what a rare thing it is to hear elected leaders lay out the hidden and not-so-hidden realities of discrimination (and racism) that still runs very deep in our city. And Councilmember Licata, in the 25 years I have known him, has never displayed so much passion, particularly when he so vehemently disputed Compton's and Conlin's paternalistic remarks suggesting the poor aren't as responsible as the rest of us.

Councilmember Steinbrueck also drew wide applause when he called the measure "Draconian," inhumane, and cruel. He also pointed out that Wills' and Conlin's "towing is better than jail" argument is nothing but a "red herring," given that the County uses a system of deferred prosecution as an alternative to either jail or towing. And Councilmember Nicastro got some of the biggest rounds of applause when she gave a heartfelt statement about the struggles with money that poor people must face every day of their lives--forcing them sometimes to make painful choices or even overlook some things (like payment of fines) as they seek to make ends meet.

Seven years ago, we had no one on the Council to oppose the Sidran laws. Six years ago, Charlie Chong was elected and soon made it clear that he opposed the Sidran laws, joined later by McIver. When Charlie stepped down to run for Mayor, we were briefly back to one civil libertarian on the Council (then a rather timid one as well). But then in subsequent elections, first Licata and Steinbrueck won seats, and then Nicastro filled a fourth slot. The climate has clearly changed and so has the willingness of councilmembers to be a voice for disenfranchised communities. Last Monday, we saw a degree of passion and emotion on behalf of poor people and people of color rarely seen among elected officials in this town.

What has made this possible, of course, has been the outstanding work of affected people and their advocates doggedly challenging the Sidran forces at every turn, every time they seek to impose one more repressive social control measure. In the case of the car impound law, credit goes to "Drive to Survive," a loose coalition that forced the Council to revisit this onerous law only one year after it went into affect. Special recognition goes to communities of color (especially African American leaders) and people from organizations like LELO, POCCAN, CAMP, Larry Gossett (from the County Council), and attorneys from the Public Defender's Office and the ACLU. In the end, it is only through such efforts that we can create a climate hospitable to the election of responsive councilmembers.

But the vote a week ago also highlighted another important fact. We need individual elected officials who are willing to "SPEAK UP"--to strongly move critical justice issues including repeal of the car impound law, no-sitting law, and parks exclusion law. And there are a host of other measures crying out for this kind of forceful leadership to reinforce the community's call for more shelter beds (and tent cities until we get them), a true "independent" civilian police review board, passage of a right of first refusal law, and a repeal of the restrictions on rent control. We need such initiative from councilmembers even though we may not have the five votes needed to win. After all, that's what helps us eventually get those five votes on the Council that we need.

In recent years, even our supporters on the Council would say, "Oh, I support you in principle but I'm not going to introduce your proposal because I can't get five votes." None of that could be found when the vote was taken a week ago on the car impound law. Even if a councilmember stands up alone for a "justice" issue like this (and is responsive to affected people), it greatly helps the community organize itself--especially if they are able to get the issue to a stage where there is a hearing and vote. It means there is a definite timeline leading to the possibility of redressing the problem, which enables us to get better organized. It brings more of us into motion because people are more confident their direct actions can truly make a difference. The members of the press also are more inclined to cover the issue and give visibility to affected people and their grievances that prompted the Council action.

We also get a chance to really congratulate, support, and work with our friends on the Council not to mention giving "good" councilmembers a chance to really show their stuff. In effect, it lays the groundwork for the election of more progressives on the Council and the re-election of those who are already there. Only when a councilmember speaks up, when someone takes achance and forces the issues to be debated at all--in the end that's what helps us get the five votes we need for a progressive majority.

Of course, when good councilmembers speak, it also forces the other side to show their hand. Both Heidi Wills and Richard Conlin, for example, can no longer pretend to be progressive or even compassionate liberals. Both said they were critical of the Sidran laws when they ran for office, but their votes on this issue have proved otherwise. We also now know that Compton, as sincere as he may be, carries little understanding of the daily struggles that poor people confront every day of their lives. His remarks--and Conlin's, for that matter--bordered on downright paternalism towards the poor and people of color. (We already knew that Pageler and Drago couldn't care less about human rights).

Last Monday, we had four councilmembers speak up when in past years there were none or only one or two. Now we are only one vote away on these civil rights issues and maybe only two votes away on other redistributive or economic justice issues. What happened last week--everyone's part in it--from those in the audience to the actions of those four councilmembers--have helped move this process forward--and to a far greater degree than I have seen in many years. That's why I'm not so completely bummed out that we didn't repeal the law. Thanks to all for their critical role in this.